West's 2♥ call suggested a four-card suit (support X was available). 3♥ would have been pre-emptive, so 2♥ suggests at least some values.
OK, what's "standard" here?
#1
Posted 2011-May-23, 10:15
West's 2♥ call suggested a four-card suit (support X was available). 3♥ would have been pre-emptive, so 2♥ suggests at least some values.
I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things; more, I cannot say.
#2
Posted 2011-May-23, 11:20
Coelacanth, on 2011-May-23, 10:15, said:
West's 2♥ call suggested a four-card suit (support X was available). 3♥ would have been pre-emptive, so 2♥ suggests at least some values.
Most people play X by the opener as take-out here.
Support doubles are played by the opening side not the intervening side, so what you have written is a little odd. When
partner has overcalled with what is normally a 5 card suit you just raise with 3 card support. The modern style would be
to play the X of the 1NT bid as take-out, a 4225 shape would be perfect.
#3
Posted 2011-May-23, 11:56
hatchett, on 2011-May-23, 11:20, said:
Support doubles are played by the opening side not the intervening side, so what you have written is a little odd. When
partner has overcalled with what is normally a 5 card suit you just raise with 3 card support. The modern style would be
to play the X of the 1NT bid as take-out, a 4225 shape would be perfect.
I'm not 100% on the details of the EW agreements. I do know that W thought she was showing more than a simple competitive raise; in otherwords, she doesn't have a 7-count with 3 hearts. East is a known maniac, so West's bid shows either a 4th heart or close to limit-raise values.
I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things; more, I cannot say.
#4
Posted 2011-May-23, 14:06
Not sure if that is best
#5
Posted 2011-May-23, 16:36
And then in the post mortem when staring at a bottom score... but not that, idiot. Or if a good score, well done partner.
#7
Posted 2011-May-24, 04:14
Coelacanth, on 2011-May-23, 10:15, said:
West's 2♥ call suggested a four-card suit (support X was available).
Is this the agreement or your guess ? Because DBL by overcaller's pd would not be a traditional support DBL.
"It's only when a mosquito lands on your testicles that you realize there is always a way to solve problems without using violence!"
"Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say."
#8
Posted 2011-May-24, 04:32
simplified speaking - low level doubles, espseically if they have found a fit are
for T/O, showing shortage in their suit.
As it is - 1NT also showed a stopper in heart, so if South decides to Pass 2Hx,
this should not be an unpleasant suprise for North, but only South knowes, how
good the supposed heart stopper really is.
Putting this together - the X showes add. values and heart shortage.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#9
Posted 2011-May-24, 07:42
My hand was something like ♠AQJx ♥void ♦JT98x ♣AKT9.
South, who subsequently described my double as "100% penalty", passed holding something like ♠Txx ♥8xxx ♦A ♣Q8xxx.
We took the ♦A, 2♦ ruffs, and three top tricks in the black suits to set the contract one trick for a fine matchpoint score.
I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things; more, I cannot say.
#10
Posted 2011-May-24, 08:14
#11
Posted 2011-May-24, 08:49
MrAce, on 2011-May-24, 04:14, said:
My thoughts exactly...
#12
Posted 2011-May-24, 09:22
aguahombre, on 2011-May-24, 08:14, said:
Most of the NS pairs were +50. I just re-checked and NS were vul; the only pair to do better than +100 was +950.
I say what it occurs to me to say when I think I hear people say things; more, I cannot say.
#13
Posted 2011-May-24, 09:23
2NT is, by agreement and the inference from the paragraph above, not natural. It would show pretty much what the actual opening bidder had ---responder has 4+clubs or 3 diamonds and will choose accordingly.
3C would have shown 5 of them.
#15
Posted 2011-May-24, 11:11
#16
Posted 2011-May-24, 11:39
It seems like double should be takeout with some extras, suggesting that responder can convert if he wants (say he has four good hearts) or can compete in a minor. This is pretty much what opener has, and I think responder should bid 3♣ (since his hearts are xxxx).
This is different from the auction 1♦-Pass-1NT-2♥-X, where opener could easily have a stack of hearts (and responder won't) and it makes sense for double to be penalty.
I'd suggest the following rule for auctions where I open, partner bids 1NT, and my RHO then takes a call.
(1) If it is possible for partner to hold 4(+) cards in the suit opponents have named, then my double is takeout.
(2) If it is not possible for partner to hold 4(+) cards in the suit opponents have named, then my double is penalty, and I can bid 2NT for takeout.
Thus for example: 1♠-Pass-1NT-Bid and double is takeout because partner could have any 4(+) card suit except spades.
On the other hand, 1m-Pass-1NT-2M and double is penalty because partner cannot have a 4(+) major. If I want partner to "pick a minor" (i.e. takeout) I bid 2NT.
The reasoning is that if partner would never convert a takeout double to penalties, I may as well bid 2NT for takeout instead of X. This frees up X to be penalty. However, if partner might convert a takeout double to penalties I want to give him this chance, and my takeout-oriented hand will tend to be more common than a penalty hand.
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#17
Posted 2011-May-24, 15:12
Coelacanth, on 2011-May-23, 10:15, said:
West's 2♥ call suggested a four-card suit (support X was available). 3♥ would have been pre-emptive, so 2♥ suggests at least some values.
typically a DSIP double - penalty oriented: I have extra's (at least 3.5 DT), not neccessay trumps, your decision partner !
#18
Posted 2011-May-24, 15:38
Coelacanth, on 2011-May-23, 10:15, said:
West's 2♥ call suggested a four-card suit (support X was available). 3♥ would have been pre-emptive, so 2♥ suggests at least some values.
#19
Posted 2011-May-25, 05:39
xxhong, on 2011-May-24, 15:38, said:
yes ! Indeed !
when I said penalty oriented, I really meant VERY penalty oriented.
By your double you do not necessary promess trumps, just extra trick taling power, and partner should only pull it on exceptional hands.